Here’s a question for you: if someone suffers a psychotic break and, in the midst of that, takes a knife and slits the throat of an innocent person, is that person guilty of murder?
Here’s another question: who is the “more moral” of a person? Me (I never got a detention in school, never even uttered a swear word until I was 24, never did drugs, never have been drunk, and am just overall a super-awesome guy!), or a common street prostitute? Well, ME, of course, right? But how do you know? What do you know about my background? What do you know about the prostitute’s background?
Granted, on the surface of things, I would seem to be the “more moral” of a person. But in Lewis’ chapter, “Morality and Psychoanalysis,” we find that things aren’t always so clear cut and obvious. I love this chapter, for it makes us look underneath the surface of people’s outward actions.
What Psychoanalysis is Good For
Nowadays, going to a counselor or psychiatrist doesn’t carry the stigma it used to. Ask your parents—back in the day, “going to a shrink” was a humiliating thing to admit. When Lewis wrote Mere Christianity, that was still the prevailing attitude among many people. Lewis, though, actually argued (quite correctly) that it does have a place. Why? Because some people really are screwed up! It’s not just a “sin” problem, but a truly medical or psychological problem.
Lewis points out that when someone makes a moral choice, there are actually two things involved: (1) the actual act of choosing, and (2) the feelings inside the person that comprise that person’s “raw psychological material.” If that “raw material” is screwed up, that is going to make it extremely hard for that person to make a responsible moral choice. That’s where things like psychoanalysis and counselling come into play. They try “to give the man better raw material for his acts of choice.”
Lewis then gives an example to illustrate this: three men go off to war. They’re all scared. One man overcomes his natural fear, goes into battle, and becomes brave. The two others have real psychological problems that cripple them from even choosing to go into battle. They are not cowards—they are mentally incapable. So they both get psychological help. Once they get cured, they are now in a position to make a moral choice. One might choose to go into battle and be brave, and the other could very well show himself to be a true coward. But before they were cured, they simply couldn’t be held responsible for their actions.
Simply put, as Lewis says, “bad psychological material is not a sin, but a disease. It does not need to be repented of, but to be cured.” This is vitally important to remember, because we tend to judge people based on their outward actions, but God judges people based on their moral choices.
And so, (to refer back to my original question) if young girl grows up raised by a drug-addict, perverted and abused by everyone in her life, left to fend for herself on the streets, and thus becomes a hardened, cruel, drug-addicted prostitute—if she, through strenuous moral effort, simply does one act of kindness at the risk of being further abused by her pimp, it is very well possible that she has done something “more moral” and more noble in God’s eyes than if I gave up my life for a friend.
Why? Because I had a good childhood. I had a stable and loving family. I grew up with countless privileges that that prostitute never had. Quite frankly, it’s pretty easy for me to be a “super awesome guy”! But then I read this by Lewis: “Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse that those whom we regard as fiends.” Ouch… if that doesn’t put you in your place, I don’t know what will.
So, okay, I’m a pretty nice guy. But when I’m by myself in my car, and I find myself behind some yahoo who is going 35MPH in the passing lane when the speed limit is 50 MPH, oh the things that come out of my mouth! And why? Because I won’t get to Starbucks 30 seconds sooner? How moral is that? I recently saw a comedy bit by Louis CK regarding flying—he was talking about how we all tend to be so selfish. I apologize for the vulgarity, but the truth in this bit is a smack in the face.
Let’s face it. We are not nearly as moral as we think we are. We are selfish, petty, self-absorbed creatures. So yeah, outwardly compared to other people, I’m a pretty nice guy…but I complain about slow drivers and plane delays. Here’s a question: if you watched the Louis CK video, what offended you more? His swearing, or the realization that you’re guilty of the very thing he was talking about? I’ll tell you this much, after watching that Louis CK bit, I find myself catching my temper a bit more when I’m behind the wheel or delayed at the airport. I’m trying to choose the right way to react to petty things!
What is Christian Morality?
This leads to Lewis’ second point in the chapter: how we tend to view Christian morality. Let me say up front, we should admit this is true. We tend to view Christian morality as sort of a “deal” we make with God, where if we keep His rules, then He’ll teleport us into heaven one day, but if we don’t, then we get we become a char-broiled cheeseburger for some demon in hell.
Needless to say, that’s not a good way to view Christian morality. Instead, Lewis tells us we should view it this way: “every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you , the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature.”
I think that is very profound: the choices you make are part of some “let’s make a deal” bit with God. The choice you make transform you within your very being, and eventually you will transform into one kind of creature or another. It’s the small steps on the journey that are so important, for it is the journey that makes you into the person you are to be, not just “getting there” to the destination.
I remember as a kid in the eighties, listening to a Christian singer named Greg X. Volz. He was the former singer of the group Petra. He had a song in which there was the line, “Your heart’s not in it when you’re living for the bell.” One of the stanzas has these lyrics:
The meeting is cooking, the preacher is hot,
Collection’s been taken, sinners on the spot,
They sing about Jesus is coming again and they can’t wait ’til they fly away with him.
There’s a lot to get done ‘fore the end of the show but it’s hard to get to it when you just wanna go!
His point was simple: too many Christians just “want to get to heaven,” and they take no interest in what God wants us to do here on earth. That’s the problem with the view of morality as a “deal” with God. With that mentality, your goal is just to “get to heaven,” when the whole point of the Gospel, what God wants from us, is to put our heart into following Christ on the journey, and thus be transformed and re-created into His image.
I can’t help but think that some of the most outwardly “moral” people we see in churches are sometimes the most heartless. I think their understanding of morality has more to do with Monty Hall than Jesus Christ.
Conclusion
Lewis concludes by pointing out one more thing about realizing morality is really about making choices that transform you. When you make good moral choices, when you take steps on the journey to follow Christ, you come to understand yourself better. Therefore, the more you understand the good, the easier it becomes to identify the bad that is still left inside you. In that sense, making good moral choices brings light and knowledge about oneself. Consequently, it shouldn’t surprise us that thoroughly bad people, the ones who consciously make bad choices all the time, they don’t really think they’re bad people!
Lewis is right: “Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know either.”
